A Christian Nation?

[DanKroh]

In all the flurry over abortion, I missed this in your post, Beavah, and would like to address it: "Aye, there's the rub. Society cannot survive if any individual can freely "trump" the law and the community with personal belief. Prohibit murder? But I personally believe that I should kill old people who are in pain (Kevorkian), or young people who are permanently handicapped. You're infringing on my belief. Prohibit polygamy? But I'm an ex-Saudi prince who believes that I have a right to 20 wives to serve me at my whim. Prohibit theft? But I believe stealing from the other tribe/group/class is an act of righteousness. Prohibit pedophilia? But some individuals believe it to be a legitimate expression of mentoring love...."

 

That's why I said that the purpose of a law should not be to codify morality but to benefit society by preventing harm or preventing an infringement of others' rights.

 

Rastifarians have an exemption to marijuana laws based on their religious practices. Native Americans have exemptions to controlled substances laws to accomodate their religious practices. Quakers were exempt from the draft based on "conscientious objector" status. So even though we have laws, exemptions are made because of religious beliefs. So we do have a precedent of religious beliefs trumping the law, when it is perceived that doing so causes no harm to society. So shouldn't we consider how a law will infringe on the beliefs of others before we pass it?

 

Edited to add: In my religion, we only have one commandment; "Do no harm", which makes the rest superfluous in my view. I tend to use this as my gold standard; does it do harm (includes physical, emotional, and psychological)?(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

[DanKroh]

BTW, I want to give a big thank you to everyone who is willing to discuss this issue in such a civil way. It really is helping me to understand the other position, by going beyond the rhetoric and vitriol that usually blocks out any actual enchange of ideas.

[OldGreyEagle]

Dan, sorry I missed the IVF answer, to be consistent I dont agree with IVF since it often results in the termination of fertilized eggs

[Beavah]

Rastifarians have an exemption to marijuana laws based on their religious practices. Native Americans have exemptions to controlled substances laws to accomodate their religious practices. Quakers were exempt from the draft based on "conscientious objector" status.So even though we have laws, exemptions are made because of religious beliefs.

 

Yah, those exemptions are carefully tailored to protect religious practice, not religious beliefs, eh? There's a difference. And even then, there are limits (ex. polygamy).

 

In my religion, we only have one commandment; "Do no harm", which makes the rest superfluous in my view.

 

Superfluous? I wouldn't agree. Your one commandment strikes me as being somewhat indifferent to the welfare of others.

 

The Christian ethic goes well beyond "do no harm" and incorporates an obligation to "do good things" and to live well personally. Those Christian values of positive duty to self and others are essential to the Scout Oath and Law.

 

Do no harm does not get you to charity, or self-sacrifice, or personal growth in wisdom or relationship with God.

 

You're right, there's a certain arrogance to Christendom. The obligation to charitable care for others means correcting others when they're wrong, teaching them about God, founding hospitals and schools and missions... and yes, working for a society that values and preserves all life, that upholds in its statutes the love and partnership between a man and a woman that makes for marriage, that provides for the needs of the poor and the weak.

 

 

 

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Rooster7]

I do believe that codifying Christian morality into law violates my first amendment rights if that law is in conflict with my own religious beliefs.

Murder and rape are examples of morality being codified as law. Now, as to the Christian part of the argument - I have to ask two questions. First, who gets to determine whether or not a value is of Christian origin? And second, who gets to determine the mindset of each voter as they cast their vote seeking to have such a law created? I think the answer to both questions is nobody. Again, the government is violating everyones right when they strike down laws supported by the majority. Every law has a moral origin, and it is not the governments job to limit the morality of the people to secular values (if anything can be rightly labeled as such). We the people determine the morality by which we want the nation to govern us.

 

And just for giggles heres something else to ponder: What if non-religious persons agreed with certain religious values, and decided to adopt them as their own. For example, say millions of atheists decided it was a good idea to limit marriage to a man and a woman. What business does the government havewhat justification could they use to label this value as religious and thus nullify it for consideration as law.

 

I agree with whoever said that the best way to solve the abortion controversy is to define when life starts, but I'm not sure that can be accomplished without then starting another controversy.

 

I agree with you.

 

For those who believe that life begins at conception, what is the basis of that belief?

 

Biblical arguments aside, given our limited ability to make such a determination, it is the safest assumption to make. For those who believe that life does NOT begin at conceptionor NOT until the day of birth, what is the basis of that belief? Is viability the only criteria? If a fetus reacts to pain, isnt this enough of an indicator to hearten and heighten your sense of consciousness and concern that we are in fact dealing with a human child.

 

I have seen many Christians cite the Bible to support the belief that abortion is a sin because it is murder, but have not seen any citation that explicitly says that conception is the start of a human life.

 

There are no explicit verses that say killing an unborn child is murderNor are there any explicit verses to indicate pedophilia or pornography is wrong, but I have no doubt that the God of Bible would condemn the practice of all three abortion, pedophilia, and pornography.

 

Beavah, you may believe that Christian principles eventualy ended slavery, but it was also Christian principles (completel with supporting Bible verses) that defended slavery for a century after a bunch of non-Christian deists tried to get it abolished in the Declaration of Independence.

 

Not exactly Folks who wanted to justify slavery, twisted Bible interpretation in order to quell descent in the Christian community. So, yes a bunch of Christians were deceived. Thats much different than Christian principles defending the practice of slavery. A fair examination of the Bible says otherwise.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[DanKroh]

Beavah writes: "Yah, those exemptions are carefully tailored to protect religious practice, not religious beliefs, eh? There's a difference. And even then, there are limits (ex. polygamy)."

 

Well, except that the Quaker exemption to the draft was based on belief, not practice. So I would argue that there are exemptions based on both. I'll try to think of some others based on beliefs.

 

As far as limits, this is my point. On what basis does society regulate marriage, if not the morality of the majority? There is no benefit to society to prohibit polygamy, other than to satisfy the morals of the majority.

 

Beavah also writes: "Your one commandment strikes me as being somewhat indifferent to the welfare of others.... Do no harm does not get you to charity, or self-sacrifice, or personal growth in wisdom or relationship with God."

 

That's true, it doesn't in a strict interpretation. But I also see "do no harm" covering inaction as well. If I allow someone to suffer because I am not charitable to those in need, then I am doing harm. Furthermore, in Wicca there is also something called the three-fold law, which says that what you do returns to you threefold. So if you are charitable, you get charity in return. If you are a selfish so-and-so, you should expect selfishness in return. So while we have no strict commandment to be charitable, self-sacrificing, etc., we recognize that there are consequences if you choose not to be.

 

I guess to me, it is more a matter of personal responsiblity; I choose to act in a certain way towards others because I personally feel it is the right thing to do, not because my gods have commanded me to do so. I choose to strive to be closer to my gods because I feel their calling, not because I fear retribution if I don't.

 

It is possible to feel very strongly about the inherent worth of all life, to care about the ills of our society, to want to uphold love and partnerships between any consenting adults, for reasons other than "because the Bible tells me so". The only arrogance I see is that come Christians think they have a monopoly on being ethical, caring, moral people.

 

[DanKroh]

Rooster writes: "Again, the government is violating everyones right when they strike down laws supported by the majority. Every law has a moral origin, and it is not the governments job to limit the morality of the people to secular values (if anything can be rightly labeled as such)."

 

I disagree. A government can strike down a law supported by the majority without violating their rights.

 

For example: Let's say that the majority of voters in Massachusetts get a law passed that bans same-sex marriages. The MA Supreme Court overturns that law as unconstitutional. How does that violate the rights of those majority voters? Is their ability to practice their religion compromised by overturning this law? Are their rights to marry being compromised by overturning this law? The only "right" they are being denied is the ability to impose their morality on others.

 

If you can think of a way that allowing same-sex marrige violates the rights of the majority, I am very interested in hearing those ideas.

[DanKroh]

I missed these questions in your previous post, Rooster: "First, who gets to determine whether or not a value is of Christian origin? And second, who gets to determine the mindset of each voter as they cast their vote seeking to have such a law created?"

 

Well, I think any reason for wanting a law that starts with "The Bible says...." should send up a red flag. I don't think that a law that is based on a religious value should automatically be discouted, because there are plenty of religious-based values that are shared by EVERY religion. However, when a value NOT shared by the minority religions is being considered as a law, extra care should be taken to think about whether that law will really be of benefit to society or is only being enacted to appease the morality of the majority.

 

In other words, sometimes the rights of the minority do need to be considered above the will of the majority. This is the point I've been making all along, and which you have stated, Rooster, that you disagree with. So we seem to be at an impasse, and will have to agree to disagree.

[Rooster7]

For example: Let's say that the majority of voters in Massachusetts get a law passed that bans same-sex marriages. The MA Supreme Court overturns that law as unconstitutional. How does that violate the rights of those majority voters?

 

It violates their rights because its the will of the people. The US government should never circumvent the will of the people so long as individual Constitutional protections are not being violated. Per your example, I do not believe a ban on homosexual marriages violates any protected right provided by the Constitution.

 

Is their ability to practice their religion compromised by overturning this law? Are their rights to marry being compromised by overturning this law?

 

Neither of these are relevant again, the right to govern ourselves is being violated.

 

The only "right" they are being denied is the ability to impose their morality on others.

 

Again, every law has a moral base. Therefore, every time a law is created, the morality of the majority is being forced on the minority. This is how it should be. The minority should not be able set the moral tone for the majority.

 

I missed these questions in your previous post, Rooster: "First, who gets to determine whether or not a value is of Christian origin? And second, who gets to determine the mindset of each voter as they cast their vote seeking to have such a law created?"

 

Well, I think any reason for wanting a law that starts with "The Bible says...." should send up a red flag. I don't think that a law that is based on a religious value should automatically be discounted, because there are plenty of religious-based values that are shared by EVERY religion. However, when a value NOT shared by the minority religions is being considered as a law, extra care should be taken to think about whether that law will really be of benefit to society or is only being enacted to appease the morality of the majority.

 

The above creates an implausible set of circumstances and forces the government to make presumptions that they should not make. Furthermore, I think its the wrong interpretation of the Constitution. The government has no idea why the majority embraces certain values. In other words, unless someone writes a law with a preamble as you suggested, the Bible says - how does the government know that a law is being supported for religious reasons? Going back to abortion, the government should not presume that every person who is against abortion is motivated by religious reasons. Theres no way to determine that, and frankly its not the business of the government to know. Even if the majority is motivated by religious faith, this is not a violation of the establishment clause. Only when a law forces citizens to embrace a particular faith does this clause come into play. Lastly, given the number and variety of religious faiths in this country not to mention atheists and others, I contend that we do NOT share a single common value. There will always be a minority of some size that can assert that a law violates their religious beliefs. Given that criteria, every law would have to be abolish. With the possible exception of murder and rape, and I dare say a quick Internet search will probably prove otherwise - we do not have one value that is unanimously shared.

 

In other words, sometimes the rights of the minority do need to be considered above the will of the majority. This is the point I've been making all along, and which you have stated, Rooster, that you disagree with. So we seem to be at an impasse, and will have to agree to disagree.

 

I think what we disagree upon is - What exactly are the individual protections that the Constitution protects. I think we were given the basics Free speech (with limited restrictions), freedom to seek our own faith (or not), and several others that we commonly know and accept. And even here, I believe there are limitations. If one embraces a religion which seeks to do harm to others, I see nothing in the Constitution which insures individuals the right to practice such a faith.

 

We may be at an impasse. I truly believe that the framers of our Constitution never meant for it to be interpreted as it has been. Many jurists in recent history have expanded our individual rights in such a scope and manner that it violates our right to be self governed. I am fiercely opposed to such an expansion of individual rights.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[wyomingi]

It is clear to me that our founding fathers meant to protect the minority against the will of the majority. That is why we have a republic not a democracy. As James Madison said when discussing democracy in the Federalist Papers "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual."

 

John Adams said "It is...as necessary to defend an individual against the majority in a democracy as against the king in a monarchy."

 

Thomas Jefferson said, "The minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."

And James Madison, wrote this: "It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part."

 

If the authors of the Bill of Rights wanted our rights to be narrowly interpreted why did they write "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"?

 

 

[johndaigler]

The will of the people is important when it comes to the selection of leadership (though, even there, it isn't the only tool) but is, truly, only one factor in the legislation and governance of any democracy -- particularly a representative one such as ours. History shows the majority isn't trustworthy enough to be the final arbiter of law. Christian Nation? I don't think there's a very large number of Americans who would like to see the USA be a Democratic Theocracy.

 

I think the trouble is in using the label (gee, that's surprising, jd! ). If the question is about Christianity and the governing of a nation, it seems to be a dead end where an individual's personal faith holds the trump card. But if the question is abortion, or states' rights, or polygamy, or religious symbols on govt. buildings, etc., then we're all better served by leaving the capitalized labels on the side and discussing the issues on their social merits. Without the labels it's harder to "confuse dissent with disloyalty" and differences in morality with immorality. Without the labels it's harder to justify that letting others make life choices somehow minimizes and legally damages our lives.

Without the labels we can get past the murky history of which values/laws are steeped in Christian faith (or any other faith), or borrowed by the Christians but steeped elsewhere, or . . . I think the original point always gets lost -- metaphorically, the story becomes Fred Phelps and Patriot Guard Riders rather than about American men and boys dieing in the desert and whether they should be in harm's way.

 

Rooster, I agree with >>Per your example, I do not believe a ban on homosexual marriages violates any protected right provided by the Constitution. >> but, I think the same argument could be used in favor of gay marriage legislation. . . or polygamy, or even abortion, since the Feds don't grant "citizenship rights" at the moment of conception.

 

jd

[GernBlansten]

Saying that laws against murder, rape and incest are examples of Christian values is akin to saying that eating healthy is a Christian value. Sure Christians value it, but so does 99.999% of Americans (OK, I'll retract that eating healthy is universally valued). To claim that these laws are a result of Christian values is at best arrogant and at least ignorant. Do any of you who prescribe to this notion ever heard of Ven Diagrams? The interlinking groupings of ideas that overlay and intersect a larger grouping. Its the bases for logic and critical thinking. Think of the largest circle as all the laws, rules and moral codes from every sector of society. Then within that is a circle of Christian laws, rules and moral codes. Intersecting that will be Muslim ones. Intersecting that will be the US Criminal code. Some regions of the circles are exclusive to the particular grouping, some are shared. Some are wholly encircled by other circles. The area that all the circles intersect is the common ground. This is probably the area of dispute here. To call that area "Christian Values" is absurd, unless the circle of US laws was entirely and exclusively within the Christian values circle.

Clear as mud eh? Hows that for remembering Logic and Critical Thinking-101 from 20 years ago?

[GernBlansten]

I'm a pretty black and white kinda guy (paleo-conservative). I like things clearly defined and loophole proof.

I am against the procedure of abortion because I think it is a barbaric method of birth control. I won't have one and I would try my best to avoid anyone in my family to have one either. Nothing religious about that opinion, just basic human instinct. However, the US government has established the life begins at birth and therefore the fetus is not protected by rights granted to citizens. Because of that, I do not want laws passed that outlaw a specific medical procedure. If you want to end all abortions, pass legislation that defines life as something prenatal. Don't go after the procedure. But be prepared to deal with everything else that comes with that. Citizenship, investigations into wrongful death via miscarriages, welfare benefits, the list goes on and on.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Rooster7 writes:

For example: Let's say that the majority of voters in Massachusetts get a law passed that bans same-sex marriages. The MA Supreme Court overturns that law as unconstitutional. How does that violate the rights of those majority voters?

 

It violates their rights because its the will of the people. The US government should never circumvent the will of the people so long as individual Constitutional protections are not being violated. Per your example, I do not believe a ban on homosexual marriages violates any protected right provided by the Constitution.

 

So, in your opinion, laws against interracial marriage should not have been struck down in Loving v. Virgina? Over 2/3rds of the population at the time thought that interracial marriages should not be allowed.

[packsaddle]

The moth suddenly dives for the flame...

The notion that passing a law is going to end abortions is arrogant or delusional. The procedure will be legal somewhere and those with the resources can choose to go to those places. Those less fortunate will still have the choice of the illegal alternative. But the genie is out of the bottle. As with IVF and other technologies, the ability is there and it isn't going away. Society can make things miserable for women who want the choice. But the choice will be there nevertheless.